On 2 Feb 97 ,Brad Knowles insightfully wrote:
> However, taking off my AOL hat again, this doesn't solve the
> larger problem -- what about other places (like WebTV, AT&T WorldNet,
> etc...) that have similar problems, and what about educating the
> general Internet community at large?
It is my undestanding from AOL marketing and from you that AOL is
"supposed" to be the "leader". Leadership means taking iniative. Not
waiting around for others to do something.
Don't worry about other people. At the moment, for list owners, like
myself, AOL is the problem *not* the others. If AOL was truly the
leader it would like the world to believe it is, it would take the
iniative and start doing something.
To my knowledge, none of these other groups allows their subscribers
to click on a button and refuse to receive email from them. To my
knowledge, these other organizations are not specifically targeting
the "clueless" as AOL is doing. So, for the time being, they may not
be the problem you anticipate them to be.
The question is, is AOL truly the leader they claim to be? Then why
don't they take the iniative in training their online people? Or,
finding solutions to training them.
What is a viable solution? For those 50 free hours that AOL is
offering everyone -- why doesn't AOL keep their subscribers in AOL's
domain instead of releasing these neophytes on to the Internet. This
way they are AOL's problem for 50 hours and during that time period,
AOL can train their potential prospects on how to use AOL's services
and the Internet.
This solution would help relieve the burden of listowners from having
to waste resources with AOL's subscribers. Specifically, the "50"
hour wonders. If AOL truly offers such a great service that
subscribers will want -- then allow these 50/hr wonders to explore
AOL instead of the Internet.
Another solution is not to allow AOL subscribers (50/hr Wonders) to
subscribe to any Internet lists. Email must stay within AOL's domain.
This way they don't join a bunch of lists and then abandon their email
address. AOL has been able to do this in the past. They should be
able to do so, now.
Another solution:
If AOL can provide their subscribers with a turn off button so they
don't have to receive mail from a server -- they should ensure that
the person also can not send email to that server. This would
eliminate subscribers from subscribing to the list or sending spams
to the list.
Basically, I see this new AOL function as protection for spammers.
They can send a spam out to the internet and then set up a block so
they don't receive any flames back.
Leonard
BTW: Just for point of contention. I found it ironic that I was
recently spammed by TLCB@AOL.COM who wanted to invite me and my
mailbots to participate in AOL's campus. I guess that AOL does
condone spamming after all. 8)
|
|
